News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Massachusetts

Started by hotdogPi, October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ProfBrad

Today on the WBUR traffic report, a backup on a section of highway in Randolph was referred to as I-93 South. The traffic report on WBZ gave the location of the backup as Rt 128 North. It seems to me that the changeover to retire Rt 128 as a name on that section of roadway is progressing as I am hearing it called I-93 more and more over the past couple of years. I also have noticed most if not all signage referencing Rt 128 where it is co-current with I-95 (apart from the small shields) has come down.


PHLBOS

GPS does NOT equal GOD

ProfBrad

Thanks for the links, I have not seen all of these.

Mergingtraffic

With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

PHLBOS

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
That's likely because those aren't located along major highway stretches.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2017, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
That's likely because those aren't located along major highway stretches.

MA 33 is a local retail shopping strip (with cheap gas) that also serves Westover Air Reserve Base.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2017, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
That's likely because those aren't located along major highway stretches.

MA 33 is a local retail shopping strip (with cheap gas) that also serves Westover Air Reserve Base.
But it's not a freeway nor turnpike-type road.  For the most part, the various signing contracts have largely been for Interstates and other freeways.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
Route 33 is a unique situation.  Too few signs/structures to justify a separate replacement contract, but too many signs/structures to enable replacement through the traditional District-wide sign maintenance contract.  There is a project (MassDOT Project 607736) currently at the preliminary design stage to do signal and intersection improvements on Route 33 from Fuller Road to Abbey Street - I'll check to see if signing work is included.  The project is presently scheduled to be advertised for bids in August of 2019.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

kefkafloyd

The button copy signs on Route 33 are so old they still refer to Westover as Westover AFB, when it's been Westover ARB for over twenty five years. Other signs in the area have the new(er) nomenclature.

The last center-tab sign (Basketball hall of fame sign on I-291W to 91 S ramp) in the region is probably kaput with the viaduct reconstruction, as it was attached to the side of the viaduct.

Rothman

Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 27, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
The button copy signs on Route 33 are so old they still refer to Westover as Westover AFB, when it's been Westover ARB for over twenty five years.

Heh.  I got a tour of a C-5A at Westover when I was a kid.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Roadsguy

RE: The I-95/295 interchange improvements in Attleboro, particularly because I couldn't find much information on Google:

I see they've replaced (or are nearly done replacing; the Google imagery shows it under construction) the SB-SB ramp with a smoother one. Is this new ramp two lanes? Also, are they planning on replacing the NB-NB ramp, perhaps like a flyover or trumpet style ramp following the NB 95-SB 295 loop?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

bob7374

Quote from: Roadsguy on August 27, 2017, 08:01:15 AM
RE: The I-95/295 interchange improvements in Attleboro, particularly because I couldn't find much information on Google:

I see they've replaced (or are nearly done replacing; the Google imagery shows it under construction) the SB-SB ramp with a smoother one. Is this new ramp two lanes? Also, are they planning on replacing the NB-NB ramp, perhaps like a flyover or trumpet style ramp following the NB 95-SB 295 loop?
The ramp is complete and is 2-lanes. If I recall correctly, a flyover ramp for I-295 North to I-95 North was looked at as part of the project, but ended up being cut due to cost considerations.

DrSmith

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

kefkafloyd

Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

Alps

Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...

kefkafloyd

Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...

What other way?

http://i.imgur.com/vmFMZU9.jpg

How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road? Or part of an industrial park if you want to go the 290W-495N style? The geometry would be very difficult, to say the least. The former 95N to 295N ramp that would have been there has been encroached by development if you compare modern maps to historical maps.

It would be much tighter geometry than what's on 128N to 95S, or 128N to US 3N, and it probably wouldn't net them any accident reductions for rollovers despite the elimination of the weave. Keep in mind that the entire point of the 95S to 295S project was to eliminate the very kind of twisty ramp that would be required to go from 95N to 295S in a trumpet connection, because that old ramp was a rollover magnet. If you're going to have to spend the money, you aught as well spend it to do it properly (a flyover or a large enough modern ramp) versus something that won't have a gain.

As much as the current weave is annoying, it does slow people down enough that they don't take the current ramp too fast.

Roadsguy

#816
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this or this when the real solution is this.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

PHLBOS

Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AMYou'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.
IMHO, that should've been done when it became known that the highway wasn't going to be built east of I-95 (as I-895).

As far as the 95N to 295S cloverleaf ramp is concerned; that could probably remain as is.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

kefkafloyd

Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this or this when the real solution is this.

I see, we're thinking of two different problems and talking past each other.

I'm not sure if they'd be able to build that quite that way, though, as that would be even tighter than 290W to 495N which is, itself, very prone to rollovers.

There's also the power wires in that same area that may need rerouting, which could complicate such a thing as well.

bob7374

I'e posted new photos from driving through the I-95/MA 128 Add-A-Lane work zone this past weekend. Progress can be seen in the use of the new fourth left travel lane northbound, as seen in this photo at Highland Avenue northbound:


and a new traffic configuration at MA 9 and ramp to Highland Avenue southbound. The rest of the photos at the I-95 in MA photo gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane

Roadsguy

Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this or this when the real solution is this.

I see, we're thinking of two different problems and talking past each other.

I'm not sure if they'd be able to build that quite that way, though, as that would be even tighter than 290W to 495N which is, itself, very prone to rollovers.

There's also the power wires in that same area that may need rerouting, which could complicate such a thing as well.

Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution. Ideally a flyover like this could be built, but that was cut for cost reasons as stated above. But is the existing loop and weave really less dangerous than the tight, direct ramp?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

kefkafloyd

Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 11:29:38 AM
Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution. Ideally a flyover like this could be built, but that was cut for cost reasons as stated above. But is the existing loop and weave really less dangerous than the tight, direct ramp?

It depends. All things equal eliminating a weave is a good thing in my book. But there might be other factors at play as to why that particular move hasn't been made yet.

RobbieL2415

Has anyone ever considered tunneling I-91 under Mount Thom in East Hampton?  You could shave off a couple miles doing so.  Plus the highway kinda winds around the mountain and traffic sometimes bottlenecks near trucks trying to pull the steep grade northbound.

J N Winkler

I suspect a tunnel under Mount Tom was rejected out of hand, if it was even considered at all, because it would have to run at the base for any real savings in terms of grades climbed and the ridge looks wide enough to make for a tunnel of about a mile and a half.  (The Eisenhower/Johnson tunnel complex, the longest on the Interstate system, is 1.693 mi long westbound and 1.697 mi long eastbound.)  If truck percentages are high enough that trucks climbing the grades skirting the hill are causing significant delay to other traffic, then climbing lanes are probably justified.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Rothman

Totally unnecessary and I doubt it was even considered.  On top of that, Mount Tom is part of the state park system.  Used to have a ski area on it as well, visible from I-91.

The only thing that section needs is a third lane in either direction.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.